DID HATCH USE STAR TRIBUNE PHOTO IN CAMPAIGN BROCHURE?
Is this picture of Hatch from the Star Tribune?
Back in February (see below), I posted a picture of Mike Hatch that appeared in the Star Tribune on February 20, 2005. I used the photo for an MDE photo caption contest, but I was informed by the Star Tribune that I needed to remove the picture.
MDE vs. STAR TRIBUNE
I was contacted this evening by the Star Tribune regarding my use of the picture of Mike Hatch for my caption contest.I checked with my legal department and rather than pursuing an expensive and long legal battle, I removed the picture.
For the record, I do think Hatch's office contacted the Star Tribune.
##
After reviewing Hatch's new campaign brochure, I noticed another picture that I believe is from the Star Tribune and appeared in the exact same story. I remember laughing at this picture when I first saw it.
I can't determine from my copy of the brochure if there is a source provided for this picture. I could be wrong, but I think Hatch's campaign would need to get permission from the Star Tribune to use the picture and then source the picture in the literature.
Stay tuned.
3 Comments:
I can't say for sure what the Star Tribune's photo policy is, but I know a lot of papers are leery of letting their photos go in campaign ads.
Sometimes, they will allow it with a credit. But again, I don't know what the Tribune's policy is.
The brochure is full of quotes that are sourced. None of the pictures look copied from a newspaper. Also, just because a photo appears in a newspaper doesn't mean that they hold the copyright to it.
Hatche's office called the Trib? Who's to say that they don't watch your site (The Trib)? In fact, I thought that you were proud that they did. You have been mentioned in stories, correct? Hell, it could have been anyone of the so called "moonbats" that visit your site.
I would think that they probably watch sites that are more high profile for copyright infringement. I think at times that you probably step a little over the line a bit with the fair use doctrine. #1 reprinting whole articles is usually frowned upon by the courts and #2 is highlighting really commenting?
Also, long protracted legal battle = potential MDE Exposure. I am sure that has crossed your mind, eh?
Does it matter who was the narc? Wrong is wrong.
Didn't your Senate candidate Mark Kennedy recently get into a little embarrassment for being creative with work that wasn't his?
Yes he did.
Post a Comment
<< Home